User talk:Pat Payne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Pat Payne, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Paul August ☎ 19:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Thanks 2 Vandalism 3 Speedy deletion 4 YW 5 copyright vio of USS Gambier Bay (CVE-73) 6 Disney 7 Roland Clark 8 Talk:George Washington 9 *** Important - Your input requested ASAP *** 10 Scopes Trial 11 Reminder... 12 Hunt the Wren Day 13 The Sub Wars 14 I removed a prod, not an AfD notice 15 Hey 16 your warning for me not to make personal attacks 17 Legio VI Ferrata 18 Good catch 19 You are wrong 20 User:NickTellis 21 Hans Grässel 22 Please subst... 23 Talk:Boston Tea Party 24 Dobbs 25 Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can 26 RE: unhelpful and non-constructive information 27 Your reply 28 You have reverted my changes to the AS2 page 29 Re: You have reverted my changes to the AS2 page 30 Tripoli Rocketry Association at LOGRTAC 31 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy (comics)

[edit] Thanks

...for this edit summary. The usual recommendation is to be boringly neutral when reverting vandalism, with a comment like 'rv vandalism', since anything else can tend to encourage vandals. Nevertheless, this one made me smile. -- Solipsist 18:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page! Mr. Lefty 21:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion

I noticed that you tagged the page Pro Per Inc. for speedy deletion with the reason "Unencyclopedic, little more than a business pitch for the subject's legal service, blatant POV issues, no context as to why he's important enough to be in an encyclopedia". However, "Unencyclopedic, little more than a business pitch for the subject's legal service, blatant POV issues, no context as to why he's important enough to be in an encyclopedia" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use one of our other deletion processes, proposed deletion or articles for deletion if you still want the article to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle 23:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YW

No problem. :) --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 05:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] copyright vio of USS Gambier Bay (CVE-73)

Hi, I noticed that you tagged this article as a possible copyright violation. It is my belief that this particular article does not qualify as such because its information can all be found at http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/g1/gambier_bay.htm Which happens to be a public domain source, since it is produced by the United States Navy. I've also raised my concern on the article's talk page, Talk:USS Gambier Bay (CVE-73). Thought you should know. Thanks -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 00:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disney

No problem! I was just about to fix that :) Qtoktok 21:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roland Clark

Hi, The article was dire - I sympathise with you wanting to just delete it! And I actually have no idea whether it's really verifiable or notable - a quick Google showed he exists and was in some of the groups, so I thought it best just to take the worst bits out (which didn't leave a lot) Dlyons493 Talk 20:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem - it's quite obvious you were acting in good faith. I think you need to change the nom text at the top now. Tyrenius 22:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:George Washington

First, I want to thank you for reverting the vandalism done to the George Washington article. Enlight of this I would like you to comment on the discuss I start on the talk pages entitle Fully Protected. Please read my statements carefully and voice your opinon. Thanks for everything!--(Steve 22:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC))

[edit] *** Important - Your input requested ASAP ***

Please see this Wikipedia:Deletion review#Rationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush.

Merecat 00:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

---

• Please tell me what you think of this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination).
• You can leave your message on this talk page here.

---

[edit] Scopes Trial

Has this article been a "featured" article recently? How does one recommned articles for featured?

• According to the talk page, it hasn't yet. As for how to nominate pages for featured, I'm not sure how to do it yet. Sorry I can't be of more help :( Pat Payne 13:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder...

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 02:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hunt the Wren Day

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Hunt the Wren Day, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Hunt the Wren Day. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Amalas =^_^= 03:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Sub Wars

Yeah, I know the history with the article. I didn't want to delete because technically this one didn't have a speedy criterion backing it up—you could argue recreation, but it wasn't the same content that was speediable before. But even as anal as I try to be about speedy rules, deleting it straight out was probably just as well. Thanks! -- SCZenz 23:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe this artical shouldn't have been deleted either. I have read the rough draft and it is currently in the process of being published. I agree with what you said about the artical in question. I will be sure to let the author and 07holsombd about you kind view.--Vader's Fist 16:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that at least you didn't want to delete this article. Why did you do it though if it didn't conflict with any rules. I demand you put me in contact with the person who made this decision.--Jar Jar 16:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I removed a prod, not an AfD notice

From {{prod}}: "You may remove this message if you ... object to deletion of the article for any reason." 71.132.143.158 22:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

It's not big, we all have each other's backs. Yanksox 18:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your warning for me not to make personal attacks

My reply on his talk page was in response to him saying on my talk page: "Why do you support this article so much. Rap has not helped save anyone. It is not important. Besides, you sound like an idiot. I believe you should change your ideas about life, before you do something stupid. --Jar Jar 16:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)". I urge you to consider context in the future, --Urthogie 08:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legio VI Ferrata

You modified Legio VI Ferrata article. Could you please provide references? Mine [1] tells a completely different story.--Panairjdde 13:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello. It seems that the source you used is not so "reliable", since tells a new story without providing references [2]. I'm reverting your edits: for the moment it is better to stick with the almost unanimous version. Best regards.--Panairjdde 09:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good catch

That uncited, off-topic line about Stan Lee's political contributions had all the earmarks of right-wing fulminating. -- Tenebrae 22:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are wrong

Non notable? Eduardo Sato is the most famous gay Japanese poet ever. He won the 2001 Xinglaong award for Christ sakes! Do some research before you act next time. NickTellis 23:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:NickTellis

This guy is my asshole roomate. This edit he made from my computer while I was still logged in. I apologize profusely, I've told him to stop messing with Wikipedia, please disregard anything you hear from him. (By the way, the page he created is total nonsense and should be speedily deleted.) --Nscheffey^(T/C) 05:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hans Grässel

When writing a stub on a German architect, I stumbled on the fact that he was awarded the orden Pour le Mérite. This made me confused. If you have anything to add on Talk:Hans Grässel, please do so! (I would ask people who wrote larger parts of the article on the orden in question, but as far as I can see all those who did large contributions to that article were anons.) // Habj 10:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please subst...

...user talk templates such as {{drmmt}} - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Boston Tea Party

Howdy, I noticed that you and I seem to post in one or two articles dealing with progressive issues in political science/sociology. There's currently a debate beginning in Boston Tea Party as to whether the article should include the category [3]. It meets definitions set in the articles Terrorism and Definition of terrorism, however, there are several self-proclaimed patriots who watch BTP who refuse to recognise the fact. The simple criteria for terrorism generally seem to be intimidation or destruction of property in order to change public policy or public opinion while a state of war has not yet been declared. Some users would rather use recent acts of terrorism as a yardstick, rather than using a firm definition, and hence lose their ability to discuss matters calmly. Would you be able to pop in to the Talk page and join in the discussion? Thanks much, samwaltz 05:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dobbs

There were several sources saying more or less the same thing, which is allowed if not optimal. However a couple were blogs that probably would not satisfy WP:RS so I removed those instead. The remaining source of the set only addressed current activities, so I removed the the word "former", copyedited it, and used the Berkowitz article as the source. Feel free to make improvements. Cheers, -Will Beback 23:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

[edit] RE: unhelpful and non-constructive information

I did not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to the topic Communism. I just stated that Starlin was not a comunist. People are getting false information from that topic and it is leading people to belive false facts about Stalin and Communism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Union6 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Your reply

Thanks for your reply. And I do understand why my comments were removed. And I suppose I was just acting in frustration about it and not thinking properly. Union6 12:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You have reverted my changes to the AS2 page

Hi,

I have tried adding a link to the Providers section... and it was rolled back. I have tried removing the Providers section... and it was rolled back.

Either Wikipedia condone the publication of commercial URLs for advertising AS2 software providers, or they do not.

If they do, I would like the URL I entered last week to be entered onto the page, with no rollback. If they do not, the Providers section should be removed in its entirety, with no rollback.

The page in its current state is unacceptable from a business perspective.

I have sent an email to Wikipedia on this matter already.

Thank you for your time.

Rob

80.7.252.56 21:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: You have reverted my changes to the AS2 page

Hi,

I have just seen your response to my request, above. Thank you for getting rid of the Providers section.

As you stated in your response, they shouldn't have been there. The only reason why I added our commercial link, was to stay competitive on the AS2 page.

Thanks again.

Rob

80.7.252.56 22:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tripoli Rocketry Association at LOGRTAC

FYI, your removal of TRA from List of groups referred to as cults was certainly approved by me, but the tedentious reversion was predictable. As both a matter of logical analysis and populist common sense, TRA is a "fancult of popular culture" not eligible for listing under article rule #5 in the header.
There have been several previous attempts at removal and a number debates about this on the talk page. The most recent one is here. I think it would take a sequential reverting consensus of four regular editors to keep TPA off of the list. (Please reply here if you have any comment.) Milo 03:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy (comics)

There may not be enough info on this character to warrant a separate article, but you don't seem to have considered merging and redirecting the material to an article on the Mutant Massacre or a list of Morlocks. (See also WP:FICT). If merging this is an accceptable solution to you, please return to the discussion to say so and withdraw your nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)